Ref Watch

Just putting this out there,say that was a match end of season and one of those teams needed a win to avoid relegation and that had happened while leading 1-0 they go onto lose the game so relegated.would they have a claim to ask for a rematch or go through the courts loss of revenue and premier league status ..
 
the-ecstacy-of-eight said:
Anybody saying that Attwell made a "mistake" and that all his PiGMOl endorsed mates are bending over backwards to explain the interpretation of the laws and how he made this mistake are so far off the mark.

It wasn't a mistake.

He, like so many refs before him have done, gave a VERY dodgy decision in favour of united when he saw the opportunity to, which directly led to them scoring a VERY dubious goal.

It wasn't a fucking mistake.

It was simply yet another example of totally biased refereeing in the rags favour.
Click to expand...
Agree. He wanted to award that goal and would find any rationale in his mind to justify it. He knows there are no consequences to him regardless so it's a free hit. These red wankers have been getting away with this for years and I doubt it will ever end. It absolutely stinks. Hope this puts fire into our teams belly now to rip this league to shreds.
 
the offside and handball laws have been changed to show how good var is ,isn't var smashing ,it can spot an armpit offside, they are justifying var by changing the rules of football, var has no place in football the way its used ,its as bent as fuck, similar to ffp , they were both brought in for the right reasons then changed ,fucking bent.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I used to read Johnson's articles to get an unbiased view on controversial decisions, but really he is just an intellectual Peter Walton. They all seem to forget that Ederson is an "opponent" "attempting to play the ball" by positioning himself for a shot from Rashford. What else do they expect him to do? Rush out and clear the ball and Rashford out safe in the knowledge that he is offside? Yeah right. Play to the whistle they tell you. They expect him to have one eye on Rashford and one on Fernandes so he can react to both? On what planet?

Johnson: "The real case for discussion is about Ederson, and whether his actions would have changed had Rashford not been there. Perhaps, but Rashford doesn't impact the goalkeeper's ability to come and play the ball. He may affect his choice to do so, and how he might shape for a save, but the law doesn't discuss how a player might behave differently if the offside player isn't present; it only discusses the ability of an opponent to play the ball."

Ederson's problem was Rashford in any goalkeeping scenario, he is quite rightly looking right at him and positioning himself to save the shot. That is all his ability as a goalkeeper can allow him to do in that situation. Rashford shouldn't have been there, then his ability as a goalkeeper would allowed him to rush out and clear. The mind really boggles that they can't get their heads around this.

Still fuming.
Click to expand...
when a player is through or going to hit the ball the keeper will watch the feet, is the player going to smash it ,slide it in ,chip it , i'm sure edison was thinking hes going to try and curl it in right footed with the outside of his boot , angles dictate how the player is going to hit it,to allow that goal is nothing short of corrupt, because im 99% sure if that had been haaland closing in he would of been given offside .
 
Gazza said:
I'd love the City players to work out a routine in training where they pass the ball to an obviously offside Haaland who just stands in front of the ball until a nippy player like Foden sprints in and scores just to show the present offside rule as the farce that it is.
Click to expand...
Judging by Rashfords actions on Saturday, he could even do a few feints and the odd Norwegian jig over the ball and it’d be ok.
 
Gazza said:
I'd love the City players to work out a routine in training where they pass the ball to an obviously offside Haaland who just stands in front of the ball until a nippy player like Foden sprints in and scores just to show the present offside rule as the farce that it is.
Click to expand...

I think we absolutely should do. If that's now deemed to be within the rules then it's a fantastic tactic.
 
Sir peace frog said:
when a player is through or going to hit the ball the keeper will watch the feet, is the player going to smash it ,slide it in ,chip it , i'm sure edison was thinking hes going to try and curl it in right footed with the outside of his boot , angles dictate how the player is going to hit it,to allow that goal is nothing short of corrupt, because im 99% sure if that had been haaland closing in he would of been given offside .
Click to expand...

Here is another thought.

Ederson comes out and intercepts the ball without Rashford touching it. A less than perfect touch from Ederson, so that the ball slices behind him. Rashford goes on and taps the ball into the empty net. What is the decision then? I am pretty sure the touch from Ederson plays Rashford onside. Good goal.

These laws are insane. Made by people who don't think things through from a players' perspective. Made by referees, basically.
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
It was a case of getting 'the best' young refs. There were two of them - can't remember who the other one was, but I thought at the time that he had nowhere near the experience required to handle games, and it has proved correct. The fact that he is still whistling away or, in most cases, not whistling, tells us much we suspected from the bunch malfunctioning as officials.
Click to expand...
Did I actually see the FIFA badge on his chest? He must be really corrupt to get that one.
 
Can someone extend the video and put the Benny Hill music to Rashford running behind the ball?
 
mcfcbill91 said:
Dermot Gallagher did a good job of explaining the thought process and possible conversation between the officials, but PGMOL have to provide clarity on that conversation. Firstly on why it led to an instant decision of goal and whether it truly led to VAR unable to intervene.

It now feels like had the offside stood, VAR could then truly get involved and provide the referee with sufficient angles to make an informed decision.

Seems like he rushed to give a goal and VAR remit is too narrow, it was left unable to actually help the fucking idiot.
Click to expand...

Having now read Dale Johnson's article, which contains the below line

'Information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL was used in this story'

It appears Atwell gave the goal alone and the wording of the law gave VAR no opportunity to intervene.

I'm now keen to see how this information being made widespread knowledge will effect set pieces etc, especially as there's now a clear example that the law means you can be clearly offside, cause a distraction etc, but provided you don't make physical contact with a defender or the ball, it's irrelevant.

Certainly worth trying it once or twice.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Here is another thought.

Ederson comes out and intercepts the ball without Rashford touching it. A less than perfect touch from Ederson, so that the ball slices behind him. Rashford goes on and taps the ball into the empty net. What is the decision then? I am pretty sure the touch from Ederson plays Rashford onside. Good goal.

These laws are insane. Made by people who don't think things through from a players' perspective. Made by referees, basically.
Click to expand...
How about Rashford touched the ball but Eddy cleans the fucker out ending his career, that’s what’s going to happen to someone soon, it wouldn’t be a foul as he has touched the ball but was offside.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Here is another thought.

Ederson comes out and intercepts the ball without Rashford touching it. A less than perfect touch from Ederson, so that the ball slices behind him. Rashford goes on and taps the ball into the empty net. What is the decision then? I am pretty sure the touch from Ederson plays Rashford onside. Good goal.

These laws are insane. Made by people who don't think things through from a players' perspective. Made by referees, basically.
Click to expand...

Then it would move on to whether Ederson had made a deliberate play at the ball. Which by your description sounds like he would have. So play would have been reset and it would be a goal. That’s assuming the referee is still sticking with his decision that Rashford hasn’t interfered with an opponent.
 
The offside law is fucked but whats worrying and what has come out of this debacle is that officials can now hide behind 'subjective view' and they will be backed by the PGMOL.
So next weekend if the same incident occurs with 2 different teams the referee can basically call it how he likes.
If ever you were in doubt about corruption in football , subjective is the new buzzword used to bend the rules
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top